TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION
F O R S T R U C T U R A L
COLLAPSE RECOVERING
by Davide Gamberini1
, Ingrid Paoletti1
, Roberto Nabo...
The paper address the problem of early adoption of software such as INSPIRE in
the analysis of damages due to seismic asse...
STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER
USE INSPIRE
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
MATERIALS
MODEL SET-UP
CASE STUDY
COMPARISON OF THE RESULT
SEISMIC R...
TOPOLOGICAL OPTIMIZATION
The purpose of topology optimization is to find the OPTIMAL LAY-OUT OF A STRUCTURE within a speci...
USE OF INSPIRE
STRUCTURAL SOLVER with topological optimization logic implemented.
FRIENDLY USER INTERFACE it is easy to le...
REINFORCING SEISMIC STRUCTURE
FAST PROVVISION STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATIONS FOR CERTAIN LOAD CONDITIONS
UN-REINFORCED MASONRY ...
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1 - LOADS/ CONSTRAINS ANALYSIS
2 - INITIAL ANALYSIS
3 - REFINED ANALYSIS
4 - COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS
MATERIALS
This study involved thee different materials: steel, reinforced carbon fibres stripes and premixed ultra high pe...
SET-UP OF THE MODEL
The correct configuration of the model passes through the understanding of the geometrical
layout of t...
CALIBRATION OF THE MODEL
A series of SIMPLE ITERATIONS are produced with the aim to understand the behaviour of the
softwa...
CASE STUDY
MASONRY LOAD BEARING STRUCTURE
dimensions: L 10m/ H 10m / W 0,45m
MODEL GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
SCENARIO 1...
SCENARIO 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE LOAD CASE:
36 KN applied in the normal direction on the surface
moment with a value of the 2...
SCENARIO 2
CONCRETE STRUCTURE CARBON FIBRES STRUCTURE STEEL STRUCTURE
Number of elements computed: 26565
objective functio...
SCENARIO 3
Number of elements computed: 26995
Objective function change of volume: -81,8%
Max displacement: 0.0016 m
Max S...
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
Results of the computation of the three case study are compared based on: percentage of volume subtr...
FINAL COMMENTS ON THE STRUCTURES
Steel Structure
Steel Structure
Steel Structure
CFRP Structure
CFRP Structure
CFRP Struct...
INSPIRE FEEDBACK
POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE SOFTWARE:
NEEDS FOR POWERFUL HARDWARE SETUP
(Especially in the evaluation of...
FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
PROPOSED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PAPER:
TO FINALIZE THE DESIGN OF THE REINFORCING STRUCTURES
(with ...
SET UP of the simulation model
Usage of INSPIRE for topological optimization of reinforcing seismic structure
Case studies...
THANK YOU!
CONTACTS:
DAVIDE GAMBERINI
davide.gamberini@mail.polimi.it
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION FOR STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE RECOVERING

833 views

Published on

Published in: Engineering, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
833
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
70
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION FOR STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE RECOVERING

  1. 1. TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION F O R S T R U C T U R A L COLLAPSE RECOVERING by Davide Gamberini1 , Ingrid Paoletti1 , Roberto Naboni1 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE, Munich 26th june 1 DABC - Politecnico di Milano, via Ponzio 31, 20133, Milano, Italy. Keywords: topology optimization, computational design, structural recover, retrofit structure
  2. 2. The paper address the problem of early adoption of software such as INSPIRE in the analysis of damages due to seismic assessment on existing masonry building. A possible approach to simplify the form finding process of complicated structure such as retrofitting typology is presented, trying to understand limit of application of the soft- ware and the minimum required knowledge of the designer in the field of structural design. ABSTRACT
  3. 3. STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER USE INSPIRE DESIGN METHODOLOGY MATERIALS MODEL SET-UP CASE STUDY COMPARISON OF THE RESULT SEISMIC REINFORCING STRUCTURES
  4. 4. TOPOLOGICAL OPTIMIZATION The purpose of topology optimization is to find the OPTIMAL LAY-OUT OF A STRUCTURE within a specified region when the only known design parameters are the applied loads, the possible support conditions, the volume of the structure to be constructed and possibly some additional design restrictions such as the location and size of prescribed holes or solid areas (Martin, Bendsøe & Ole Sigmund, 2003). Topological optimization logic ALREADY IMPLEMENTED in the field of retrofitting structures both concrete and carbon fibres (M. Bruggi, A. Talierci, 2013; M. Bruggi, G. Milani, A. Talierci, 2014) MAX STIFFNESS 50% ORIGINAL VOLUME MAX STIFFNESS 30% ORIGINAL VOLUMESET UP DESIGN SPACE
  5. 5. USE OF INSPIRE STRUCTURAL SOLVER with topological optimization logic implemented. FRIENDLY USER INTERFACE it is easy to learn and practical to be used PLATFORM for the designer who is not used to topological optimization problems Our attempt is to understand if is possible to simplify the workflow and the study of these particular structures: DIFFICULT APPLICATION of topological optimization EARLY FEEDBACK capable to guide the design process INSPIRE SIMPLIFIED STRATEGY proposed in the paper
  6. 6. REINFORCING SEISMIC STRUCTURE FAST PROVVISION STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATIONS FOR CERTAIN LOAD CONDITIONS UN-REINFORCED MASONRY STRUCTURES RETROFITTING OF STRUCTURE AESTHETIC MATTERS HYPOTHESIS: to intervene on existing building and create an additional structure at the level of the facade, to reinforce an exhausted structure to recover from seismic activity damages or to prevent potential damages.
  7. 7. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1 - LOADS/ CONSTRAINS ANALYSIS 2 - INITIAL ANALYSIS 3 - REFINED ANALYSIS 4 - COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS
  8. 8. MATERIALS This study involved thee different materials: steel, reinforced carbon fibres stripes and premixed ultra high performance concrete. The three options taken under consideration present different mechanical properties and fabrication process. Targeting the future adoption of this technique, it is interesting to explore a range of structural solutions which can vary on different materials. Table: Material specification implemented in the simulation processes. PRE-MIXED ULTRA-HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE (UHPC) CARBON FIBER STRIPES (CFRP) STEEL UHPC 2500Density (Kg/m3 ) Compressive Strength (MPa) Young’s Modulus (MPa) Poisson Coefficient 1600 7850 200 120 200 55 120 689 0,2 0,74 0,29 CFRP Steel
  9. 9. SET-UP OF THE MODEL The correct configuration of the model passes through the understanding of the geometrical layout of the existing masonry structure itself. LOADS: DESIGN SPACE: STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS: POINT OF APPLICATION & DIRECTION AND TYPOLOGY GEOMETRICAL DEFINITION MATERIAL LOAD BEARING ELEMENTS are identified on the existing building (foundations, kerbs, orthogonal walls) DEGREE OF FREEDOM ALLOWED DISPLACEMENTAMPLITUDE OF THE FORCES Based on typological seismic damages schemes: collapse out of the plane collapse on plane Based on law verification standards on seismic structures “Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni D.M. del 14 gennaio 2008”
  10. 10. CALIBRATION OF THE MODEL A series of SIMPLE ITERATIONS are produced with the aim to understand the behaviour of the software according with different typology of loads, constraints, maximum displacements allowed and logic of computation. MODEL SET-UP SOLVER LOGICS: Max stiffness / Max refinement of the initial volume
  11. 11. CASE STUDY MASONRY LOAD BEARING STRUCTURE dimensions: L 10m/ H 10m / W 0,45m MODEL GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS: SCENARIO 1 Regional collapse out of the plane The condition of the orthogonal structures DO permits support SCENARIO 2 Regional collapse out of the plane The condition of the orthogonal structures DO NOT permits support SCENARIOS TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION: SCENARIO 3 Retrofit to existing structure Collapse on the plane The condition of the orthogonal structures DO NOT permits support All the iterations taken into account for the case studies are obtained following the maximum stiffness logic (with targeted mass 30% of the original design space).
  12. 12. SCENARIO 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOAD CASE: 36 KN applied in the normal direction on the surface moment with a value of the 25 KN.m. Constraint Points on horizontal Curbs. Allowed displacement 0,02 m Number of elements computed: 26949 objective function change of volume: -83,3% maximum displacement: 0.214 m Max Stress: 0,112E+08 CONCRETE STRUCTURE Number of elements computed: 26018 objective function change of volume: -71,0% maximum displacement: 0.02 m Max Stress: 0,718E+08 STEEL STRUCTURE Number of elements computed: 25893 objective function change of volume: -72,8% maximum displacement: 0.0177 m Max Stress: 0,934E+08 CARBON FIBRES STRIPES COLLAPSE OUT OF PLANE WITH USE OF THE ORTHOGONAL WALLS RESULTS OF COMPUTATION:
  13. 13. SCENARIO 2 CONCRETE STRUCTURE CARBON FIBRES STRUCTURE STEEL STRUCTURE Number of elements computed: 26565 objective function change of volume: -69,8% maximum displacement: 0.0126 m Max Stress: 0,105E+09 Number of elements computed: 86983 objective function change of volume: -78,8% maximum displacement: 0.02 m Max Stress: 0,154E+09 Number of elements computed: 31660 objective function change of volume: -85,7% maximum displacement: 0.00589 m Max Stress: 0,357E+07 RESULTS OF COMPUTATION: COLLAPSE OUT OF PLANE WITHOUT THE USE OF THE ORTHOGONAL WALLS DESCRIPTION OF THE LOAD CASE: 36 KN applied in the normal direction on the surface moment with a value of the 25 KN.m. Constraint Points selected on the foundation. Allowed displacement 0,02 m
  14. 14. SCENARIO 3 Number of elements computed: 26995 Objective function change of volume: -81,8% Max displacement: 0.0016 m Max Stress: 0,140E+08 Number of elements computed: 26995 objective function change of volume: -93,5% Max displacement: 0.0086 m Max Stress: 0,249E+08 Number of elements computed: 26995 objective function change of volume: -88,1% Max displacement: 0.0019 m Max Stress: 0,119E+08 COLLAPSE IN PLANE / RETROFITTED STRUCTURE CONCRETE STRUCTURE CARBON FIBRES STRUCTURE STEEL STRUCTURE RESULTS OF COMPUTATION: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOAD CASE: 55 KN applied in the longitudinal direction on the surface in correspondency of the openings Constraint Points selected on the foundation, first floor and roof Curbs. Allowed displacement 0,02 m
  15. 15. COMPARISON OF RESULTS Results of the computation of the three case study are compared based on: percentage of volume subtracted from the facade, maximum stress, maximum displacement, percentage of covering of the facade, possibility to be fabricate. % SUBTRACTED VOLUME MAX DISPLACEMENT % COVERING OF FACADE FABRICATION PROCESSMAX STRESSES 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 lower than 69,9% Higher stress Max displacement reached More than 30,1% shape and fabrication process is not compatible from 70,0% to 79,9% High stress case Higher than 50% of the range Between 30,0% and 20,1% difficult shape and fabrication process match from 80,0% to 89,9% Low stress case Lower than 49,9% of the range Between 20,0% and 10,1% easy shape and fabrication process match over 90,0% Lower stress No displacement Less than 10,0% shape and fabrication process are matching
  16. 16. FINAL COMMENTS ON THE STRUCTURES Steel Structure Steel Structure Steel Structure CFRP Structure CFRP Structure CFRP Structure UHCP Structure UHCP Structure UHCP Structure SCENARIO 3 CFRP is the best choice for reinforcing existing masonry structure. BENEFITS: lower maximum stress, lower facade’s surface covering and higher feasibility in the fabrication process. SCENARIO 1 UHCP is the best material option among the others. BENEFITS: lower maximum stress, lower facade’s surface covering. SCENARIO 2 STEEL is the best material choice for the structure. BENEFITS: lower maximum stress, higher % original volume discarded, lower facade’s surface covering.
  17. 17. INSPIRE FEEDBACK POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE SOFTWARE: NEEDS FOR POWERFUL HARDWARE SETUP (Especially in the evaluation of thinner elements) IMPLEMENTATION OF INTER-OPERABILITY (Characteristic that is very important and ensures faster and better results) VISUAL ESTIMATIVE TOOLS (To provide immediate feedback on results with coloured mesh) USER FRIENDLY INTERFACE ( fast to learn but in advanced stage can be an obstacle) USEFUL TOOL FOR NOT EXPERIENCED DESIGNER ( the knowledge of the user on structural subjects must be broad and deep ) FAST DESIGN FEEDBACK ( it is possible to compare different solutions and decide the direction in the early design phase)
  18. 18. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES PROPOSED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PAPER: TO FINALIZE THE DESIGN OF THE REINFORCING STRUCTURES (with an advanced tool such as Optistruct) TO ENSURE THE FEASIBILITY THROUGH FABRICATION PROCESS APPLICATION OF A GENERATIVE ALGORITHM (Providing to the user the possibility to adopt the outcome of the comparative matrix automatically)
  19. 19. SET UP of the simulation model Usage of INSPIRE for topological optimization of reinforcing seismic structure Case studies ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY for this research Usage of different MATERIALS SUMMARISING
  20. 20. THANK YOU! CONTACTS: DAVIDE GAMBERINI davide.gamberini@mail.polimi.it

×